9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disbursed by DHFL and suspected to have siphoned off such loans. The seizure of Rs.33,00,000/- has been made from the search conducted of the residential premises of Gulati family on 13.08.2021. The source of the seized amount has been explained as withdrawals from the personal accounts of S/Shri Subhash Gulati Sankalp Gulati on 28.09.2020 for medical exigencies. The account numbers from which the cash withdrawals of Rs.20,00,000/- was made by each of the two persons has been specified. The Branch and the Bank where these accounts were held have also been stated. It cannot be denied that the date of withdrawal was during the COVID-19 period. The concerned bank viz. the Indian Overseas Bank has issued Certificates certifying the veracity of such withdrawals - The argument of the respondent is that in the modern era of online banking the explanation of withdrawal for medical exigency seems far-fetched. It is observed that the rejection of the explanation on this ground cannot be accepted because the possibility of cash transactions during emergency situations cannot be ruled out. The respondent has failed to demonstrate either from the documents or from the digital record seized by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aMirashie an Employee of DHFL, u/s 50 of PMLA, details of loanees of amount more than Rs.200 Cr. in each case, sanctioned and disbursed by DHFL,which had turned into NPA was revealed. Among such loanees were the Appellant Company SGS Construction Developers Pvt. Ltd. (SCDPL) and its sister concern SGS Infratech Ltd. (SIL) with loan amount of Rs.650 Cr. and Rs. 300 Cr. respectively. Besides premises relating to other companies, the premises of the two companies of SGS Group were searched u/s 17 of PMLA on 13.08.2021, resulting in seizures as mentioned afore. The respondent in the OA No.546/2021 asked for retention of the documents/digital records/laptops as the same appeared to be crucial and essential for the ongoing investigation. It asked for retention of seized cash of Rs.33,00,000/- as it appeared to have been obtained from the Proceeds of Crime. The cash is believed to have been obtained from the siphoning-off ofloan from the purpose for which it was sanctioned. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Companies SCDPL SILwere genuine borrowers, being in business of real estate and construction. While SCDPL was incorporated on 25.10.2001, SIL was incorporated 08.08.1996 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were neither in the list of thirty borrowers nor in the list of sixteen borrowers. He also contended that Shri Mirashiein his statement dated 09.08.2021 had never alleged that the Appellant had siphoned off the loans or mis-utilized the loans. The respondent had failed to bring on record any material or bank statement to show that the loan disbursed to them was out of the alleged Proceeds of Crime received by DHFL from UPPCL Trust. 6. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant contended that the loans borrowed prior to 2016-2017 from M/s India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. was taken over by DHFL in January-2017. He further contended that the loans taken over by DHFL were adequately secured by way of registered mortgage and registration of charge with ROC. The loans had been utilized by the appellants only for the business purpose and were not siphoned off. DHFL through its lending team had negotiated terms and conditions of loan of Rs.650 Cr. sanctioned on 23.05.2018 against security of their 63.45 acres of land in Ghaziabad. DHFL had made direct payment to HUDCO for purchase of land in Ghaziabadby them. He attributed that the loan became NPA due to sharp decrease in earnings during COVID-19 Pande ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said cash at their residence. He contended that it is hard to believe that in this age of online payment, any one would keep such huge amount of cash at his residence for medical treatment for such a long period. With respect to records/devices the submission was that the photo copies of the same were provided to the appellant on request. For the digital record/laptop it was stated that investigation is still going on and the same would be required during further investigation. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and have carefully gone throughthe material on record. We find that the seizure has arisen in the present case out of the investigations, which were initiated against the investments made from the provident funds maintained by UPPCL Trusts,as Fixed Deposits with DHFL,contrary to the standing instructions and decisions. Such investments occurred due to connivance between the personnel on both the sides.During the course of the investigations, the Respondent Directorate noticed that these funds were deposited in the common pool of funds by the DHFL. It, therefore, became difficult to distinguish the funds diverted from UPPCL Trusts. The Respondent Directorate lar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Rs.300 Cr. which is recorded in Para 3.1 of the Impugned Order. We have not found anything contrary to the said clarification,in the present proceedings. 12. The seizure of Rs.33,00,000/- has been made from the search conducted of the residential premises of Gulati family on 13.08.2021. The source of the seized amount has been explained as withdrawals from the personal accounts of S/Shri Subhash Gulati Sankalp Gulati on 28.09.2020 for medical exigencies. The account numbers from which the cash withdrawals of Rs.20,00,000/- was made by each of the two persons has been specified. The Branch and the Bank where these accounts were held have also been stated. It cannot be denied that the date of withdrawal was during the COVID-19 period. The concerned bank viz. the Indian Overseas Bank has issued Certificates certifying the veracity of such withdrawals. The argument of the respondent is that in the modern era of online banking the explanation of withdrawal for medical exigency seems far-fetched. We observe that the rejection of the explanation on this ground cannot be accepted because the possibility of cash transactions during emergency situations cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
